Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Business As Usual

This essay first appeared in Cliterati on July 13th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.

After generations of ignoring the violence against sex workers which is directly or indirectly caused by either full (as in the US) or partial (as in the UK) criminalization, the public is slowly beginning to wake up to the reality: most of it is perpetrated by the police. Prohibitionists and “authorities” want everyone to believe the opposite, that clients and “pimps” inflict the most violence, and that the police are welcome “rescuers” from it. Nothing could be farther from the truth; in every study of violence against sex workers ever done (such as this one from India), police are the largest victimizers and clients and pimps the least, with domestic partners and people empowered or emboldened by the marginalization of sex workers in the middle. And despite the best efforts of those who need the public to support ever more criminalization in order to punish men for being men or to enlarge the police state, the truth is beginning to leak out, and we see new stories of police violence against sex workers almost every month. Some of this is due to the efforts of sex workers ourselves; some is due to the diligent efforts of allies and ethical journalists; some is due to the stupidity and hubris of the police; and some is simply the natural result of omnipresent surveillance, the internet and a 24-hour news cycle always hungry for lurid stories.

In just the past few months, there have been a number of incidents that provoked public outcry on sex workers’ behalf against the heavy-handed behavior of governments and the violence of police. In December, sex workers in Soho were subjected to a pogrom in which they were manhandled, robbed and dragged out into the street in freezing weather in their underwear; the public learned about it first from news photographers the police had themselves invited along. In March, the world was scandalized to hear that cops in Hawaii wanted the explicit legal right to rape sex workers before arresting them. In April, the general public finally began to notice Phoenix, Arizona’s Project ROSE, in which women profiled as sex workers are arrested in mass sweeps, denied legal representation and forced into religious brainwashing programs under threat of incarceration in Arizona’s brutal prison system; later that month, the world heard of the US government’s threats against financial institutions to get them to “voluntarily” cut off services to sex workers and other target groups. In May non-sex workers were shocked to see the surveillance video of a Chicago massage parlor raid in which a handcuffed, kneeling woman was beaten and subjected to racist insults and death threats; only a week later, Newsweek published an article exposing the lies and fabrications of Somaly Mam, who pays Cambodian police to abduct sex workers and lock them in filthy, crowded cells at her “rescue centers”, where they are beaten, robbed, gang-raped and starved while their “savior” hobnobs with celebrities and receives accolades from anti-whore fanatics.

These stories all have two things in common. The first is that, while they are shocking to the general public, sex workers and those who work closely with us have known about them (or in the case of single-instance atrocities, many others like them) for years or decades; it’s simply that until recently, nobody wanted to listen. The second is that those who shocked by them generally believe them to be isolated incidents rather than recognizing them as business as usual, merely visible outcroppings of the police violence that underlies the entire landscape of criminalization. While I was glad to see people upset about Somaly Mam’s torture porn and abusive practices, they need to understand that these are endemic to the rescue industry everywhere. Though I was grateful at the outcry over Project ROSE, I am frustrated at the media’s cover-up of similar rights-violating programs which are merely less obvious because they lack that special Arizona lunacy. Though I was relieved at the disgust people expressed toward the racist Chicago thugs, I am sad that most of them seem to think this was unusual, when in fact it is wholly typical behavior during any massage parlor raid. And despite the apparent public belief that the situation in Hawaii was unique,

…This is standard operating procedure everywhere in the United States, and the only thing unusual about Hawaii is that it’s spelled out in law. Just in case you’re a new reader or have a short memory, here are three examples from just last year: Indiana, Florida and Pennsylvania are all especially shameless in their defense of government-authorized rape, excusing it by claiming that sex workers are “sophisticated” (while simultaneously being pathetic, infantile victims)…

The sad fact is that none of these scandals is unusual in any way, except for the fact that they came to the attention of the public. And they will continue to be business as usual until that public stops pretending otherwise and demands the abolition of prohibition.

Nope; it increases it, as one would expect. When any group of people are segregated by law as inferior, subhuman, legally questionable, etc, police view them as safe targets for violence. And that’s not even counting the organized violence.

Thanks, it sounds counter-intuitive, then again I am not a sex-worker. I would have expected that if the law regards sex-workers as victims who can’t be prosecuted, they are then shielded from any kind of abuse. Do you know if there are any studies or accounts to support your claim that the Nordic approach increases police violence/abuse against sex-workers?

But of course; in fact, it’s in the recent Lancet series (among others). You’re buying into the claims of proponents if you believe that sex workers are “protected” by the Swedish model; in fact, the Swedish government’s own report concluded that the increase in violence was a GOOD thing because it would discourage women from selling sex.

It seems to me you’ve launched into commenting without reading much here first, or else you’d know that I’ve written extensively on the Canadian situation. It’s certainly not anything like “most likely” that the Canadian amplification of the model (it’s worse than the original) will be enacted into law; in fact Pivot Legal believes the high court may block it for its egregious nose-thumbing at the court’s decision in Bedford. It’s highly possible that C36 may pass as currently written, but it’s not yet a done deal by any stretch.

As for your second point, I apologize if I give you that impression. Your articles have lots of substance, especially for a novice, and I have only recently discovered your blog. So although I may not have read many of the articles here, the ones I did read, I did so very carefully. I want you to know that I am very grateful for all the work you put in to this blog.

I mention the Canadian situation which is a bit off-topic, because it concerns me and a loved-one. I think the law will pass as the party which supports it has the most seats in Parliament. I wish I were wrong.
It will most likely however be challenged in the courts which can take years. In the meantime, police will have the power to arrest, lay criminal charges and shame “johns” in the newspapers. Sex-workers will most likely have to adapt and hide making their work unsafe.

And although many say it is unconstitutional, as with any court case, it’s a crap shoot, it’s still up to the Canadian Supreme Court. Ideally the ruling Conservatives will be voted out next year, and the replacing party can repeal the law. But it is politically dangerous for a such a contentious issue.

Anyway, sorry for getting off-topic and derailing from the subject of your article. Thanks again for your blog and your advocacy. You are a lot more interesting to read than Meghan Murphy.

A “novice”? A novice what? I’ve been writing for almost 40 years, doing it for pay on and off for almost 30 of those, and blogging every day for 4 of them. I have a Master’s degree and have been involved in sex work one way or another for 17 years now – 30 if you count dilettantish casual prostitution. So I’m honestly not sure what you think I’m a “novice” at.

My English is not the best. You misunderstood me.
I meant to say that I am the novice. The sentence should read “Your articles have lots of substance, especially for a novice reader. I think I am going to just be quiet, because I seem to unwillingly upset you every time I write something.

I’m sure it’s just a language problem; though it did seem to me like you were being insulting, now that I know English is your second language I see that you were not trying to do that. Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding.

Believe me, I am very humbled by your apology, grateful for your advocacy and would probably be eaten alive by the antis if it were not for the wealth of research on this website.
And I apologize for not proof-reading my comments. I can see that how it could have come across as an insult.
With the coming legislation, these are very stressful times in Canada for anyone who works or who has a loved-one who works in the sex-trade. Our best defence is knowledge. Your site is a gold-mine for that.
It was the motivation of my initial “Devil’s advocate” question.

not only is it most likely to be challenged, it definitely will be challenged. The only question is who is going to be the fastest to get the challenge filed. I expect something will be afoot by the middle of next year if not sooner. if you have listened to Mackay he has as much as admitted that this piece of shit law isn’t charter compliant, it will be challenged and it will be struck down. I also don’t expect the courts to be so generous to the government as they were during the Bedford challenge. Hopefully denying the government requests to say the decisions.
On the other I may just be a delusional optimist on the last part.

Permission to throw up, ma’am. (*barf*) Thanks.
How long is it going to take people to figure out that an attack on one person’s freedom is an attack on everyone’s freedom? Regulation of actions should be limited to acts that represent a clear and present danger (to use Justice Holmes’s old term), like building a lead smelting plant next to an elementary school, or an explosives factory in the middle of lower Manhattan. I think one needs to add “self-evident” or perhaps “easily provable” to Justice Holmes’s statement to actually limit the limitation properly.
All of these attacks on “sex workers” of every description comes down to this: the subjugation of individuals–especially females–to a system of morality that they may or may not personally adhere to, as if they were children who didn’t know better.
Some reasonable regulation, for example a 1000 foot limit between a bar and a school, may be necessary, because everyone are not responsible adults. But beyond that, don’t punish me unless you can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is harmful.

The problem with 1,000 foot limits between schools and ANYTHING is that means ANYTHING is banned inside city limits. 1,000 feet is nearly 0.2 miles, so you’re describing a circle that’s 0.4 miles in diameter inside which ANYTHING is not allowed. The number of schools (and usually, daycare centers count as schools, or are explicitly included in such laws) scattered around the typical town/city is such that 90%+ of the city’s geography area is within 1,000 feet of some school. Perhaps things have changed a lot since I was in elementary school, but elementary schools were typically walked to/from by kids as young as 5, so they weren’t too far apart.

This is what we have in Colorado, it might not work elsewhere. As I said, it is an example, not a hard and fast rule. Common sense in the creation of any law or regulation must prevail.
Saying you can’t have a brothel next door to an elementary school is not outrageous, because there are always idiots who will push what is permissible to the point of absurdity, just for the sake of confrontation. The stupidity of human beings can never be underestimated.

I recall back in the early 1980s, when I was in college, hearing a story on a radio news broadcast where the local city police had to be told (I can’t recall if it was by the chief of police or the DA’s office) that the police didn’t have to actually have sex with a prostitute before arresting them for prostitution; they only had to secure the agreement to have sex for money.

Right. As soon as the deal is made, the crime has been committed. Of course, that means that the cop has committed the crime too, but the cops have been allowed to do that since forever. Obviously they’re not having sex with prostitutes because they have to; they’re having sex because sex is fun and sex feels really good. And, there is a certain personality type which gets off on the idea of “Yeah, I fucked you, and now you’re going to jail, and you don’t even get to keep the money, ha ha ha!” It’s so petty and cruel I don’t think I could enjoy it in a porn scene, and I’ve been known to enjoy some fucked-up porn, just ask Laura or Tracy.

So the police in Hawaii want it codified in law that they can do that? I’ve got an idea for a better law: if a cop does that, the prostitute is freed, any charges and/or convictions based on that action are overturned and expunged from the record, and the prostitute gets the money she was promised, and it comes out of that cop’s pay. Now, I’d like to add that the cop loses his job, but I think that this would be enough to discourage the practice, if it were enforced.

This would do until decriminalization comes, which I believe it eventually will. And the sooner the better.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".